donkeykongfandomcom-20200223-history
User blog:Brandon Rhea/Administrative autonomy and a few other suggestions
Looking around the wiki, it seems there's already been a few disagreements over who is "in charge," who "owns" the wiki, and what actions can be taken against other administrators—chiefly when it comes to demoting them, blocking them, or reverting something they've done. In order to try to make sure that disagreements don't break out on the wiki, and so the admins can be a strong team here to help this wiki grow and attract new contributors, I want to suggest to you guys a concept called administrative autonomy. Essentially, this means that one administrator cannot revert the actions of another administrator simply because s/he disagrees with those actions. For example: ::Action: Admin 1 blocks a problem user. ::Bad response: Admin 2 unblocks the problem user because s/he doesn't agree with the block. That's not the best way to handle disagreements on a wiki. Things like that can lead to anger and resentment amongst administrators, and if administrators are warring with one another then the wiki really has no good chance of success. You guys aren't in charge, but you are meant to set an example. So what would the correct response be to that? If Admin 2 disagrees with Admin 1's blocking of the problem user, then Admin 2 should discuss it with Admin 1 on their talk page and discuss why Admin 2 disagrees. Admin 1 may realize s/he made a bad call and may revert the block. This same thing can apply to demotions and simple edits that Admin 2 may disagree with and want to revert. But what if Admin 1 doesn't change his or her mind? What if it was a really bad call that should be reverted? In that case, if a majority of the other admins agree, then it wouldn't be improper to revert Admin 1's action. So that means that the only time Admin 1's action should be reverted is if 1) Admin 1 agrees to it or 2) if a majority of the other admins agree to it. If it's REALLY big stuff, like Wikia Terms of Use violations, then it's best to about those sorts of things—but not local disputes that can be handled locally. A few other concepts to briefly suggest: *'Ownership'—as I mentioned before, no single person owns the wiki. Wikis are open and editable by anyone. The content of Wikia wikis (unless otherwise noted) is licensed under Creative Commons Attribution ShareAlike 3.0, allowing anyone to re-use the content of the wiki elsewhere so long as it is attributed and the license remains the same (which is why a new Donkey Kong wiki with the same content could be created). Because of the free license and the spirit of community contributing, no single person owns a wiki. Administrators and bureaucrats are not bosses. Having extra rights just gives you extra maintenance tools to help maintain the wiki. *'Inactive admins'—just because an administrator is inactive doesn't mean their rights should be removed, even if that administrator moved on to the new Donkey Kong wiki. Unless an admin/bureaucrat is causing trouble or wants their rights removed, their rights should not be removed. *'Communication is key'—that's a bit of a cliche, and I'm no big fan of cliches, but it's still an important idea. No group of people working towards a goal, the goal of this wiki being to be a great and active community resource for all things Donkey Kong, can be successful unless they communicate with one another. Communication avoids arguments and disputes and creates a friendly atmosphere for a community to thrive. *'Civility'—alert, another cliche incoming: you can disagree with someone without being disagreeable. Just because someone has a different opinion than you doesn't mean that they're necessarily wrong or that they're a bad person. Human beings always disagree with another one. The trick is to remain friendly and civil while disagreeing. If you can do that, this can become a great community. *'Assume good faith'—this is one of the most fundamental philosophies on a wiki. The core is to assume that someone is acting in good faith and is working towards helping the wiki until proven otherwise. It goes back to civility and how you can disagree without being disagreeable. Just because someone disagrees with you doesn't mean they're trying to harm the wiki. If someone makes a mistake and their edit isn't up to your own personal quality, that doesn't mean it's vandalism. Assume good faith ignorance before ever assuming bad faith. Generally, the only people trying to harm the wiki are spammers, trolls, and vandals. Everyone else is acting to help it. So that's what I can think of at the moment, based on my observations of the wiki thus far. There are 3 administrators that have the potential to be a good admin team as long as you guys can all work together well and remain friendly and respectful towards one another. Sorry if I sounded preachy or patronizing. After all, in the interest of assuming good faith, my goal is to help this wiki succeed—as is yours. Good luck to you all, and I'm here if you need any help with anything. - [[User:Brandon Rhea|'Brandon Rhea']](talk) Category:Blog posts